Advertisements

Deposition of Dennis Glasgow - Page 3

Submitted by Peter Burns on Fri, 2010-10-22 15:08.

101

categories on the sheet described "documents to be
produced"?

A. Not other than -- I've lost my paper that I had.
There was a series of four articles; two were supportive
of Creation Science and two supportive of Evolution that
appeared in the "Science Teacher" that you asked if I
could get a copy. And I've got that. I failed to bring
it today, I forgot about it.

Q. Okay. Night find a witness there you never can
tell. I would appreciate if you would make those
available to us. Okay. do you teach any other courses
other than the one at U.A.L.R.?

A. No, other than lately I've taught several what we call
in-service mini courses. That's an in service, little
short blocks of in-service training for teachers. But
as far as college credit courses or anything of that sort,
of courses with students in them as such, I don't.

Q. Is there anything you will testify about concerning
textbook selection, decisions that we haven't previously
covered in your deposition? That's one of the subject
matters as being shown that you will testify about at the
trial.

A. I don't think we've covered textbook selection
to any degree. There is not a whole lot to say.

Q. Okay. Then just say it very briefly.

102

A. The State Department of Education selects, by some
method, I would assume by area of the state, et cetera, a
State Textbook Committee. And they select books to be on
the state list, and they're not restricted to the number of
books that they can select. Every book that's submitted,
they can put on there if they want to. But they make that
decision, and the State Department of Education issues a
list of these state approved books. And I'm responsible for
contacting the principals and asking them to recommend
teachers to serve on this committee. Frequently there are
more people recommended than can actually serve. And I
recommend the teachers to be on the committee to the
assistant superintendent wh approves that. I try to balance
them according to to school, sex, race and so forth. The
committee convenes. We have a copy -- write to the
publishers and asked them to send us a copy -- complimentary
copy of those books. They do.

Q. Immediately.

A. Well pretty close, they want our business. And there
is usually some sort of textbook caravan where all the
publishers come around and have a little set-up and a
booth. Some of us usually go to that. And then
finally, we look through the books and usually have some
sort of criteria that is developed within the committee
itself, nothing formal or districtwide or anything. And

103

we judge the books upon the criteria developed within
that committee and eventually decide on a certain book
that we want to use. And those books are recommended to the
Board of Education who approves them or disapproves them.
I've never known them to do that.

Q. Would Act 590 have any affect on that process?

A. No, I don't think there would be any affect on the
process.

Q. Okay. It says that -- the list of witnesses
designation says that you will testify generally
concerning Creation Science. Have we covered that
already?

A. To my knowledge we've -- during the couple of hours
or so that we've been here, I've stated my -- I assume
it's my professional and personal opinion about it. And
I think we've covered all of that.

Q. Okay. Do you know anybody that works for the
Little Rock public schools who disagrees with you about
Act 590?

Q. Okay. Anybody else in the -- what we'll call the
management level that disagrees with you?

A. In the Little Rock schools?

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. What about in the Pulaski County school system.

A. I'm -- you know, I can't say for certain. I don't
even know their names. Evidently, there's someone on the
Board of Education that probably disagrees since they
directed Creation Science to be part of the curriculum
there. I don't know who it was.

Q. Okay. What about Pulaski County teachers?

105

A. I'm familiar with --

Q. Larry Fisher?

A. Fisher.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Are you a member of A.E.A., N.E.A., or PACT?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any organizations which have a
position that you are aware of either stated or unstated
on Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. What organization is that?

A. Arkansas Academy of Science.

Q. Okay. What is the Arkansas Academy of Science?

A. I guess it's open to anyone that wants to join. In
affect though, or in practice it's primarily composed
of university professors within the various areas of
science. There's some people from industry in there,
but primarily professors.

Q. Have they taken a position on Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that readily available to the public?
Where would I go and get a copy of it? If it's in
writing, I haven't even asked you that. Is it in writing?

A. I would assume that it is, I can't say that it is.

106

I went to a meeting and I know that there was a model or
a rough draft of some sort of a resolution that they
passed?

A. I assume that -- and I can't even say who the
secretary of the group is. I assume it's in their minutes.
It was noted in a letter or in an editorial column in the
Gazette that they had passed a resolution against Act 590.
The -- Dr. Robinson at Southern State or South Arkansas
University is the president of that organization. I'm sure
one could be obtained, but I'm not -- I don't have one and
I've never had one. In fact, I wasn't even there to vote on
it. They were -- I think there was a reading of the
resolution one day in the meeting, and they were to vote on
it the next day and I wasn't in attendance that day.

Q. Any other organizations?

A. Well, not against Act 590 in particular. I belong
to the National Science Teachers Association, and I know
that they are against inclusion of Creation Science in
the biology classroom. I've not seen anything directed
specifically to Act 590.

Q. Is that an honorary fraternity? It sounds like it
is one of the honorary.

A. I guess it is.

Q. Okay.

A. Let's see, I'm a member of the Arkansas Science
Teachers Association, we have not taken any position on
Act 590. I guess that's it.

Q. Have you ever written anything other than this
letter to the Gazette, including papers, articles, or
books on the subject of origins or creationism?

A. I have not.

Q. Have you ever lectured -- have you ever taught a
creation model?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you taught an evolution model or taught
evolution, as you understand it?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever testified in the court of law?

A. Period?

Q. Period.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever testified before a school board?

A. Testified, no; presented reports, yes.

Q. Okay. What kind of reports have you presented?
Let me ask you this. Have you ever presented a report on

108

creationism and/or evolution?

A. I have to a school board committee.

Q. Okay. And when was that?

A. I don't know, within the last year. It was after
Act 590 was passed, but it was several months ago, before
the summer I think.

Q. Was any record made of your report?

A. No.

Q. Who was there?

A. Two school board members, it's called the Education
Committee. There were two school board members. I think
the associate superintendent for educational programs,
Dr. Williams, was there. And the assistant superintendent
for program implementation, Dr. Wettle, as I recall was
there for part of it. And there was some patron of the
district that was there for another report, that wasn't
the only report that day. In fact, there may have been
two or three other people there, but they weren't school
people.

Q. What members of the Board were there?

A. C.O. Magee and Fay Southern, I believe.

Q. What did you tell them in your report?

A. I told them -- I briefly explained what Act 590 was
or the components of that. I think I generally gave them
my opinion as supervisor of science on -- well, I do

109

remember I went over part of -- this was after my meeting
with Richard Bliss and I presented some of this
information to him. The two model approach, some of
the things that are in this as to how he, during my
meeting with him, explained that this -- Act 590 could be
implemented. And then I gave them my personal opinion about
it, which you know what that is. But it's that I thought
was unfortunate that Act 590 was passed. It has a potential
to create some problems in our classes as far as trying to
get materials together. And it's going to be -- probably
cost us some money to do this. I'm against it and I hope
that it never goes through so we don't have to worry about,
generally is what I said.

Q. Have you been a witness in any other situation or
given reports?

A. Well, I've given reports for --

Q. Years.

A. Not in the sense I think you're talking about.

Q. Creationism or evolution?

A. No.

Q. Do you see anything in the Act which would prohibit
a teacher from expressing his or her professional opinion
concerning the relative scientific strengths or weaknesses
of either model?

A. Yes, I do.

110

Q. And where is that?

A. First, let me preface my remarks by saying that the
requirement for balanced treatment is something that
is not clear, in that you have to give it some sort of
interpretation. My interpretation of balanceed treatment
is that equal weight, or equal emphasis, or equal
legitimacy must be given to meet the requirements of
this Act. I think that a teacher, through body language
or any sort of other things, when -- if you're presenting
two things can very suddenly let the students know which the
teacher thinks is the right thing. So, in that context, I
think if two things are presented and the teacher says that,
"my opinion is that this is right and that this is just a
bunch of trash," that that does not meet the requirement of
Act 590.

Q. And that -- and you reached that conclusion based
on your interpretation and understanding of balanced?

A. To a degree. And my interpretation of the entire
intent, et cetera of this plus my conversation with
Bliss, and just everything together, fitting in,
led me to believe that it couldn't be balanced if you
presented two things and then the teacher said, "my
opinion is that this is the right way and that this is
not."

Q. I'm referring to what's in the Act itself. Is

111

there anything other than the use of balanced treatment
that would lead you to believe that a teacher could not
express his or her personal opinion of the validity of
the model?

A. Well, there are a lot of things that are not clear
in here. And I don't know -- I don't see anything
specifically that states a teacher cannot express
opinion.

Q. Okay. Can the creation model, as defined in
section 4A, be presented without reference to any religious
doctrine?

A. I don't believe that it can.

Q. Why?

A. First of all, if a teacher was a computer or if the
students had their mouths taped shut and their ears
stopped up you could get up there and give a lecture
without directly mentioning religion. Although I think
it would come very close to it, in my mind. But classes
aren't taught that way, classes are taught on the basis
of discussion and so forth. And almost everything that I
can see that would be presented in support of Creation
Science would raise questions in the minds of the
students that would be expressed in class. And I think
those -- many of those questions, without a doubt in
my mind, I'm firmly convinced of this, that religious

112

questions will be raised by the students. And on the
other hand, a teacher would have to be, in my mind, very
skillful, exceedingly skillful, maybe even reading from a
prepared script or something to keep from infringing
on religion themselves.

Q. Okay. What does section two say in reference to
that?

A. Section two states that the treatment of either
Evolution Science or Creation Science shall be limited
to scientific evidences for each model, and must not
include any religious instruction.

Q. I mean there's something else it says also.

A. Or references to religious rights. There was a
part I left about about inferences from these evidences.

Q. Can Creation Science be taught without reference to
the Bible?

A. As far as footnoting the Bible, yeah. Without
reference, in the broader sense, no.

Q. Well, I want to ask you some very specific
questions. Can a high school student be taught that
there was a worldwide flood without telling him that it
was Noah's flood?

A. My opinion on that is strictly that the teacher can
get up there and make that statement without reference to
the fact that it's Noah's flood, but it's very obvious

113

to me, and I feel sure that when you talk about a
worldwide flood and the majority of the students, the
first thing that's going pop in their mind is going to be
Noah's flood. And that their little hands or big hands,
or whatever is going to pop up in the air and then
questions are going to result.

Q. Are you saying that they can or cannot be taught
without reference to the Bible?

A. In my mind or understanding of the word teach, it
cannot be.

Q. Can the subject matter be presented verbally
or in textbook form, or in filmstrips without the words
Genesis, Adam and Eve, or Noah to be contained therein?

A. Yes, it can.

Q. Okay. Would it be safe to say that you're trying to
tell me that you think that the student's would naturally
assume that this was a Genesis version of science?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you find that objectionable?

A. I can't say that I find that specific aspect of
it objectionable.

Q. Very briefly, where do you go to church?

A. I do not.

Q. Are you an atheist?

A. I am not.

114

Q. Or do you believe in God?

A. I do.

Q. Are you --

A. I might say I belong -- I am on the membership roll
of a Baptist church. However, I haven't attended church
in several years.

Q. How many years?

A. I attended church regularly probably fifteen
years ago. I have been in church several times, but I
haven't been a regular attender.

Q. Why have you stopped being a regular attender?

A. The reason I stopped is because I belong to a Baptist
church. And as I went to Sunday school and we had
discussions, there was a lot of discussion in our church
about the old Church of Christ or the old Catholics. And
members of our church put down other religion. And I came
to the conclusion, in my mind, that people all different
denomintions and religions have just as good of ideas in
faith as anyone else. And I decided then, that although I
am a religious person, I do pray, I do believe in God, I do
not belong to a denomination for that purpose, the in
fighting that seems to take place in my past experiences
between denominations that one is right and one's not.

Q. How often do you pray?

A. Well, it's kind of hard to put a number on that

115

thing. I don't pray daily. I would say I probably
pray monthly anyway.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes, I'm married.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. I do.

Q. Do they attend church?

A. Yes, they do. The youngest is three months old.
He hasn't been to church other than to be baptized, yet
he was baptized and they do attend church, as does my
wife.

Q. Do they attend the Baptist church?

A. They do not.

Q. Where do they go to church?

A. Catholic.

Q. Do you know Bill Wood?

A. I met Bill Wood for the first time, Sunday.

Q. And where was that?

A. Right in this office.

Q. When you came down for your deposition?

A. Well, I thought this was my deposition.

Q. We had scheduled your deposition before, was that --

A. No, no. It was to discuss with attorneys here, my
testimony at the trial.

Q. Was Mr. Wood there?

116

A. He was in a meeting prior to my coming in and we met
as we exchanged -- he walked out and I came in.

Q. Okay. You know Ron Coward?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. What did you discuss with the lawyers here
Sunday?

A. I discussed what my testimony would be in the trial.

Q. Do you know how they got your name as a witness.

A. Generally, yes. I didn't ask specifically.

Q. How did they get your name as a witness?

A. I wrote my letter to the Gazette. After that I
was contacted by Bob Cearley, and he came up and we had
a discussion about my role as supervisor of science, and
so forth. And during that time, I can't say for sure
this is how it happened, but I was discussing giving my
opinion on it. And he said "Would you be willing to testify
to that?" And I said, "Yes, I would." And it went from
there.

Q. Do you know if anybody else in the Little Rock
school system was contacted about being a witness
in this lawsuit.

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Has -- have you gotten the approval of anybody in
the school district to be a witness in this lawsuit?

A. They know about it, there was no approval given.

117

Q. Okay,. Who did you tell.

A. I told the superintendent, I told the associate
superintendent, I've told the assistant superintendent,
and I've told the School Board.

Q. And did any of them agree that you should be a
witness?

A. No.

Q. Did any of them indicate any dismay that you were
going to be a witness?

A. No.

Q. Did any of them indicate that they thought it was a
good idea?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Okay. I want to make some -- what's our next
Exhibit number? I'm going to move that Exhibits 1
through 10 be made part of the deposition.

Q. And I'm going to ask that the papers which show
"Creation Unit" be Exhibit 11.

The two articles from Phi Delta Kappan to be Exhibit
12. The letter from Richard Bliss to be Exhibit 13. The
cover letter and article from Dr. Krain, K-r-a-i-n,
be Exhibit 14. The letter to the editor of the Gazette
be Exhibit 15. The essay by Steven J. Gould be 16.

118

And the articles given by Dr. Richard Bliss to Mr.
Glasgow be Exhibit 17. And that's all I have.

[Thereupon Defendant's Exhibits #11
through #17 were introduced to the record.]

[Thereupon the above styled deposition
was concluded at 4:50 p.m.]

* * * * * * * * * *

120

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF ARKANSAS}
}ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI}

RE: DENNIS GLASGOW

I, MICHELLE R. NIENSTEDT of LAURA BUSHMAN COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, a Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated
by me in the caption on the foregoing deposition are true;
and that the foregoing deposition of the witness was
transcribed by me or under my supervision on the STENO-CAT
Computerized Transcription System from my machine
shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out in the
caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and
sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this
the 3rd of December, 1981.

________________________________________
Michelle R. Nienstedt, Notary Public
in and for Pulaski County, AR

I, Dennis R. Glasgow, the witness, hereby certify
that I have thoroughly read the transcript of my deposition
taken on the 30th day of November, 1981, and have made any
necessary changes or corrections to make the transcript a
true and accurate accounting of my testimony given on that
day.

______________________________
(Signature)

12-9-81
______________________________
(Date signed)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I, Linda J. McClellan, A Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County of Arkansas do hereby certify that the above deposition
was read, corrected and signed in my presence.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the
9th day of December, 1981.

RSS Syndication

Antievolutionists Say the Darndest Things

Antievolutionists often express outrage over alleged incivility from those who oppose their efforts to evade the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But they have no difficulty in dishing out the abuse themselves. Here is a sample from the Invidious Comparisons thread that documents egregious behavior on the part of the religious antievolution advocates.

Behind this student movement is a more general intellectual movement that will bear fruit in the coming century. It is a bit thin on the ground for now, but so was the Christian faith in the first century. Materialism as a philosophy is superficially powerful but moribund, as we saw when the Soviet Union collapsed without a struggle a decade ago. Methodological naturalism is a branch on the materialist tree that will lose its power to intimidate when the tree is known to be hanging in midair.